 This yellow folder has the new, has the attended sheets to make sure everyone shows up. And then just goes to, usually, this is the Development Review Board for Burlington for September 17th. We take up items in the order that they're on the agenda. And we ask people who are participating or want to be notified to sign the clipboard up there. And when we call the project, we ask the applicant to come up and you please use the microphones when anybody's speaking up there. We have some communications on 83 North Willard Street that came today or yesterday. The past couple of days. Yep. Couple of days. Okay. And we'll look at those. One thing on the agenda, that 2026 Church Street is being withdrawn. That's correct. The application is withdrawn, yes. Anybody here for 2026 Church Street? Okay. Minutes. We do have some minutes that were in our packet from September 3rd. Nice new envelope there, Lane. I think it looked like it was Village Green recommended for consent and it just came on too late. Correct. Yes, that is correct. Officially, we don't have any on the consent agenda. So the first item on the public hearing is 83 North Willard Street. Is the applicant here? Do you want to come up? And I'll ask the applicant and anybody else who's going to speak on 83 North Willard to raise your right hand so I can swear you in. And do you swear to tell the truth and hold truth under pain and penalty or perjury? Yes, I do. Okay. So this is a request to allow occupancy by five unrelated adults at 83 North Willard. Do you want to introduce yourself and state my case? Yes. Okay. And please keep the microphone closer to you. Is this good? Even closer. Good. Okay. Good evening. I'm Diane Frankenfield and with my husband, Andy Frankenfield, we own 83 North Willard Street. Closer. Better? Okay. Yeah. Okay. My name is Diane Frankenfield and with my husband, Andy, we own 83 North Willard Street. And we approach you today with a request for a parking waiver for 83 North Willard Street. First of all, thank you for the opportunity to come before you and really explain why we think this is necessary and address any concerns you might have related to it. In the review by the staff of the zoning board that informs this meeting the following points and requests of us were made. Number one, that we get a wastewater permit. So we've reached out to Renata Marshall of the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation and we're in the process of getting that very permit. The request that we have a property manager, that we have a live-in property manager be required as such was required at 26 Summit Street. We do have a property manager who lives here in Burlington. Her name is Emily LaFleur and she is listed on all the documents for the property and readily available when there's an issue that arises. 26 Summit Street to the extent that I understand it is a four-family dwelling. So I wondered why it was necessary that we get an in-house property manager, but we would agree to do so if that is the ruling of this board. The third point that was raised was residential density. So in the document prepared by the zoning division, it states that conditional use approval by the DRB in the RM district as I understand it must have 2700 square feet of space to allow us to have a fifth tenant there. We reached out to the assessors, the tax assessor in Burlington who lists our property. Kenneth at the assessor office confirmed that our $11,500 tax bill for 83 North Willard is based on 2,917 square feet of living space. That's on three levels, isn't it? That's on three levels. We have a first level that's 1062. We have a second level that's 1060. And we have what is referred to in the tax assessor's documents as a half-story finished space. So up there, there are four full-size rooms that all meet the requirements of a bedroom. There's a full bath. There's eight and a half foot ceilings of full height staircase and fire escapes. So together that's 2,917 square feet, far in excess of the 2,700 that's required in the ordinance. This is the area that we pay taxes on and we pay money to heat. And to have it not occupy at least to a slightly greater degree makes the house extremely expensive to run and honestly isn't particularly environmentally sound. And the additional parking space was really, so based on others, the additional parking space was the sole requirement for which we were requesting a waiver. The comments of the zoning board speak to the tendency of more people to have more cars and we certainly appreciate that. And we are more than willing to put any restrictions in the lease or provide deeded parking as an amendment to the lease anytime a fifth tenant is included. We discussed the efforts in Burlington to make the town very bicycle friendly. In fact, there is no residential parking on Willard Street. I imagine largely because there's a huge bike lane there now. The public transportation facilities within Burlington are exceptional. We have contacted the car share service to provide that as complementary in our lease as well. We did actually talk to a variety of people at the zoning office about adding a parking space. We feel that that would really undermine both the attractiveness of the house and its historic really, you know, look and feel to put another parking space in front of the porch would really be an eyesore and we'd much rather limit the cars there entirely rather than do that. So that's why we came to ask for the parking waiver. The surrounding streets have residential parking restrictions and Willard Street does not. So anything that we can do to ease the number of cars, we are more than happy to do. What else? Basically, in closing, I wanted to say that my husband and I love Burlington. In the last four years, we've purchased three homes and put a tremendous amount of money into each one of them. They're all on Willard Street. And honestly, with the exception of 83 when we bought it, the two were absolutely horrible, abominable eyesores full of raucous students, uncared lawns, peeling paint, tons and tons of zoning, I don't know what the correct word is, but zoning violations. So for example, when we bought 121 North Willard Street, the entire back double deck porch was completely falling and horribly dangerous. We replaced it, we painted it, we gutted the house. Well, we didn't gut it, but we actually drilled in and put in all new insulation, we emptied out the attic. We've done everything we can to upgrade it. And in doing so, we feel we've really improved its curb appeal and we've really made it something that was no longer an embarrassment to the community. We've done the same at 104 North Willard, removing asbestos, painting all new windows. And right now, at 83, in the first two months we owned it, we had the entire place painted inside and out, consistent with the historic nature of the house, respecting the colors that were there before. And we're in the process of restoring the windows with one maker renovations, also at great expense. All the money we make on this property, which isn't much, goes right back into enhancing its value for Burlington. We ask that we be allowed a fifth tenant in a massively large house, subject to any of your restrictions on parking and making accommodations for that so that we can continue to invest in the community. We know that Burlington has a huge problem with affordable housing. And we respect the concerns of the community. We aspire to be part of the solution. Thank you. Okay, just a question, is the current status of the house, it's rented out now? It's rented out now, we have a lease with four young women. I might, one thing I'd like to say is in the entire time we've owned these properties, we have never once, never once been contacted by the police or neighbors about any concerns. We had one incident when someone blocked the sidewalk with a car sticking out. That car was immediately ticketed and that ticket immediately paid. I mean, kids make mistakes, adults make mistakes. But that is the only issue that I have been aware of. A couple, right around move-in day, our property manager or our old property manager got a call about a mattress that had been left on our property. And we immediately made three calls, one a day to the city, asking for guidance or a pickup. And when they failed to respond to that request, we got rid of it at our own expense. The house does look very nice, it's nicely painted and everything else. Is there any questions that the... Yeah, can you tell me a little bit about the third floor? Is there an attic space above the third floor? There isn't, it's fully built out. So when you walk up the full set of staircases, I think it's, at one point, I mean, it's a historic home. I believe it was probably a servants quarters. But there's a full set of double stairwells that go up to it, go up to the second floor, and then one goes up to the third. Where my husband's six, three, where he can stand, doesn't have to stoop at all, and go up, you go up, and there's actually four full-size rooms up there, a full bath. And then there's closet space built into the eaves where there's not bedrooms. And the ceiling's really quite high, at least eight and a half feet. Was that finished after the house was, do you know when it was finished? I honestly don't know, it was that way when we bought it. Okay. And when you bought it, was it advertised as a space that could be rented to more than four adults? It wasn't advertised at all, I believe it was owned by a single family. I think a long time ago, when I read in the history of the property, I think it's had a bit of a spotty past. I think at once it was a boarding house at one point, or part of a University of Vermont even before that. But others in the neighborhood might know more than I do. Based on your history owning property in the area, when you purchased the property, did you understand that the zoning regulations generally prohibit more than four unrelated adults from living in a house? To be completely honest, I didn't. It was a surprise to me. Not a good surprise, frankly. Because when we were doing the math, I mean, the way this works for us, 121 is four people and one of four is a duplex with two up and two down. And I had no idea this restriction existed. We weren't informed of it by our realtor or anybody else. So I was stunned to find that a house this large had that kind of limitation. And I honestly, I have to tell you, I don't know that I would have bought it if I knew. Okay. And have you looked to see if you could put the additional parking space, physically put it on? And if you talked with Scott about that, I mean, do they agree that if the space could be? I'm sorry, I think you talked to my husband. I apologize that I wasn't part of those conversations. But it's situated on the corner of North Willard and Loomis. And there's a gate that goes around the side and you could technically, it would cost us a lot of money, but we could and would do it. We'd take down the gate and you could drive in and park behind. But I'm not sure that your environmental team would allow us to do that. Yeah, that's what I was saying. You don't have the lock covers to do that. Yeah, I know we had the same problem, honestly, when we replaced the deck at 121. Because in order to make the deck compliant, and this, I mean, we've been, we've been round and round in order to make the deck compliant from a rise and run of the stairwell, right? And not take up more green space with more footing to accommodate the new one. We had to dig up part of the driveway to have net zero impact. I mean, it's challenging. We are the same problem here. We are crazy compliant. I mean, you have had no issues with us whatsoever. Everything we do is buy the book. I know this house pretty well. Years ago, my partner used to be a renter at the house. And my question is, when you acquired it, was it owner occupied with four additional renters? Because that's how, as I understood, it was occupied for a very long period of time. Because I know there's five bedrooms there. Yes, it came up when we were talking about the transaction with the owners. And I believe they had an informal arrangement for tenants. Well, I know there were tenants. There's been tenants there for a very long time. Yeah, they had non-family members living there. Yeah. And do you know how many were there when you bought it? When you looked at it? I honestly don't. With the parking, is there, would you consider a requirement that if we were to grant you the right to rent to a fifth unrelated person that that person could not have a vehicle? Yes. How would you enforce that? Well, we're actually incredibly stringent landlords. Although we rent to students, we interview all the students. We interview all the parents. And the parents coincide the leases. We use the property manager to monitor the activity on the property as well. That's why we have someone who's very local. Other than requiring it and providing the car share service, that's why I thought of the third deeded space. Could that be an option here? Other than forbidding it and then enforcing it, I'm not sure what more I could do. If you have suggestions, I'm totally open to it. No, no, I was asking how you would enforce it. Would you put it in the lease? Oh, absolutely. Yeah, I can tell you as we're interviewing, we're already interviewing tenants for next year. And we're already telling them it's two cars only. So if I may, just curious, how long is the driveway currently? Do you know? I don't. Scott, you might know. I think I have a clue. It's long enough for at least one 20-foot space. I don't remember exactly. There's a garage, and then the space is behind it, and then the sidewalk. OK. And then do you use the garage there, Robbie? Thanks. Do you use the garage for parking? We don't use it for anything, but it's available for parking. I mean, it's fully functional with an automatic garage door opener, and it's empty for a car. Should the tenants choose to use it? OK. Thank you. So that would be the second space would be in the garage. I mean, just perhaps you're aware. I mean, there's been a long history of how many unrelated adults live in apartments, and there's a reason for the ordinance having been developed. So it's not a casual kind of thing, and that's why there's requirements, and that's why this was something that had come before us and be discussed. Now, I understand. I'm sure it often leads to. And the parking is not just, I mean, it is not an option with lot coverage. You're not going to get a waiver on that. Can I add another parking space? You're not going to get another parking space. You don't have, you've got 39% lot coverage, and it's 40%. It's already over, right? Yeah, it's already over. It's already over. So there's nothing to be done with that. So that's not an option just to mention that. Yeah, if a family lived there, though, imagine a family lived there with three teenagers. What would happen then? Yeah. They might have another, I mean, two adults and just a 16-year-old would have a, perhaps have three cars. Yeah, but they would meet the. One person could have four cars. Right, so and they would meet the zoning ordinance, though, for the number of required spaces for residential property. It's just that. Would they? Yeah, it's just two. I thought it went with unrelated adults. My mistake. You know, I've been trying to solve this anyway. I can think of whether it's leasing another parking space in town, whether it's trying to find a way at one of our other properties to accommodate another car in a very formal way. There's a nice lot behind 104 that's a garden now. And I'd hate to think that, you know, the right answer here is to pave that. You can't turn residential. No, we don't want to do that. No, we don't want to do that. Yeah, it's definitely a conundrum. It's separate use, right? Yes, this is a short answer. Yeah. So Brad, may I type in the couple's points? So the size standard in the zoning code, expressly states not including the attic or the basement. It doesn't distinguish whether it's finished or not. So in other words, if the attic is finished, we still don't count it. Likewise, the basement. The other item I wanted to point out is that the zoning code doesn't actually define attic. So we have a handy-dandy architectural dictionary that we refer to on occasion like this. And I can get you the exact language if you wish, but to paraphrase, it basically says an attic is a space or room immediately below the roof line, particularly on a house. We had this. Which is what this is. Yeah, very long conversation. On the same street. Yeah, on the same street. I mean. So it appears to me to be a finished attic. So we wouldn't count the space. Yeah, and I don't know what the source of that is, which is sort of interesting because the building code used to not allow third floor attics. And I think that changed. So I think it's actually allowable now throughout the city where before it wasn't without sprinklers and stuff like that. So, but that's not within our purview. That's what I'm proud of the mix tonight. Question for staff. So given that, am I correct in understanding that since the definition of attic isn't defined, we're left to define it? We are left to define it, but that doesn't mean that we can't rely on a reputable resource such as an architectural dictionary. There are a few people in the public who have something to say, then maybe if you could take a seat, we'll have them come up and then you'll get a chance to come back. So, Carolyn wants to start. So I do know the history of, Okay, sorry, I'm Karen Long and I already signed in. I live on Henry Street and have for 34 years and I own 73 North Willard. It's a duplex with one up single family. One bedroom apartment upstairs for one person and two bedroom downstairs for two people. So we have three tenants there and we actually have a long driveway that goes back. Parking is not an issue. This place has been an issue ever since it changed hands. It had been many years ago, it was a rental and many of you might know this. There were up to 17 people living in it and the landlord was not very respectable or careful in our neighborhood. So, luckily a young, very ambitious couple bought the place and totally restored it. It is gorgeous inside, totally gorgeous. And when they got transferred, they sold it and the people that lived in it last was an older couple my age. They retired, they have a place in the island. So the husband chose to be out there more and the wife was still working because she was a bit younger. And while she worked in Burlington, she continued to live there and she did rent out two or three of the rooms and they were always like medical students. I met some of them and each tenant had a room and an office. It wasn't like each person was in a room. They had their own space and they shared the kitchen. So when the house turned over, immediately I saw a difference in the landscaping. I didn't notice the painting this summer but I have been gone a lot. I do notice the trash. There is still today a barrel of trash that is overflowing in the front along with a goth year's trash totter, which in Burlington, it's not very sightly to keep your trash in the front 24 seven. There had been this twin mattress that the owner talked about and it was there for weeks, not three days. And it went from the green belt to inside the fence to outside the fence. The green belt, I mean it just got tossed around. So whoever is managing it was not quick to clean that up. And the biggest problem for me is yes, this might be a great investment. Maybe she could go back to renting to 17 people like the person 15 years ago. But if we do that and we're really trying to restore our neighborhoods and we spent 68,000 on the neighborhood project, we are trying to save some single family houses so that an owner occupied family or person. And we raised our children in a house. We had two vehicles, we had three teenagers. They don't need their own cars in Burlington. So to things that a family can't buy the house because there's only two parking spaces, I think that's not correct. But with the cars, I have experienced cars blocking the driveway several times. The first time I spoke to girls on the porch, they were very snooty to me like nobody, it's always there, it doesn't matter. So I will admit that the next time there was a car and these cars are halfway over the side like I called the police. So that's probably why they got a parking ticket. But it's inconsiderate. We need to save our neighborhood. I really hope you will support the staff, support our neighborhood project. You know, try to, every house or many, many houses in Burlington have finished the attic. And yeah, I could do that with my house on Henry street and put a couple of kids up there. And you know, it's just if you live in town, which you all do, and if you lived in my neighborhood where we are on the edge, Weston Street has a couple houses with more than four and related. Last weekend, or the weekend before there was a party, the police, I just got the report today, more than a hundred students were pulled out of that house and it took, I wondered why the police were there so long and that was why. So my feeling is these student homes belong on campus. It's a de facto dorm and just because it's a big home doesn't mean we need to cram every spot with a body. So please support the staff and code office and our neighborhood project. Thank you. Any questions for Karen? Thanks. Good evening. My name is Sharon Busher. I'm a city counselor for ward one. And although this is not in my ward, it's close. And I did want to speak because I feel pretty strongly about the ordinances that we have currently that are supposed to help us with quality of life in our neighborhoods. They were carefully crafted so that we would potentially not overuse a property and with that overuse comes as we all know potential cars, potential additional trash and more foot traffic and the potential for some scenarios like Karen referenced parties. I'm not even stating that. Just normal use when you have more people than a house oftentimes can hold or normally accommodate, it becomes burdensome to the rest of the neighborhood. I understand that the third floor is finished and I understand why that would be misleading for the owner to think that it's not an attic. And I feel that we're all victims of the attorneys and the real estate people that we work with and we find out things after the fact. I found out some very surprising things about a boundary line after many years that I bought my house so I'm empathetic to that. I do want to say that I do support staff's recommendations I think that the property that was cited here where they went to the court and got approval talked about a manager onsite, not a manager in the community but onsite. I think that's pretty onerous and I think that for most people I think that would be difficult to accommodate. So I think that's an entirely different scenario than the one that the applicant has put forward. So if indeed the square footage, as she stated and as you all know that if you have a large property and you have additional square feet you can exceed the four unrelated but there are strict criteria regarding that. And some of that had to do and I don't know whether this was thoughtful or not but some of it had to do with the very abuse of a property by an investor going into the attic, going into the basement making rooms sometimes where there shouldn't be rooms to accommodate more people. That is one of the things that we're trying to prevent. So I'm not saying that's this scenario. The other thing that I just wanted to touch upon is that if indeed there was a parking waiver I in Ward 1 they just removed parking on Colchester Avenue and there are a number of investment properties there and I've been trying to help the people, the tenants that live in them because now they don't have on street parking and they don't have adequate off street parking. So you really have to think about it. If there's on street parking you have to think about what you're doing to the rest of the people can people have visitors, et cetera. So you have to understand the pressures of the street and so I think twice about parking waivers now with the way Burlington is in flux and changing rules to accommodate bike lanes and eliminate some what we thought was guaranteed on street parking. So that's it, thank you very much. Thanks, John. Hi, my name is Sandy Nguyen and I lived at 73 North Willard. I lived two houses down when this property was packed with students. I moved there in 1998 and it was a nightmare. I won't begin to describe what we lived with. Today between Loomis and Pearl there are four owner occupied properties on all of this street on North Willard on both sides. We have some more responsible landlords than we did but it is a very, very precarious neighborhood and it's like a cancer once it starts to grow it can just grow and grow and grow. When we finally passed the foreign related it turned a lot of these nightmare properties around. It's sliding back and I am very concerned about it sliding back. So I hope you will support the staff recommendations. I'm sure that this particular owner now is a good landlord or hopefully will be a good landlord. As a real estate agent I can tell you that when anyone buys a property in this city especially investment and especially when they're dropping hundreds of thousands of dollars in an investment they ask questions. I would hope the real estate agents involved asked questions and educated. I hope the lawyers did but certainly the investor. I can't imagine making that kind of investment and not talking to planning and zoning to know what you can do with your property. So I'm afraid I don't have a lot of sympathy on that particular point but please support the staff recommendations. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening, I'm Bill Ward. I'm the director of permitting inspections department. Formally it was known as code enforcement until July 1st. So I'm familiar with the property and I have been really off of our radar screen when it was owner occupied and particularly this summer it came to our attention. There were reports in August about the cars from Karen Long that were being emailed to myself and to Scott Gustin about cars blocking the driveway. They were routed to John King. John King is the parking official from the city of Burlington who can direct his staff. So there were two separate reports that I was aware of. Specifically one I wanted to just follow up on that I think you heard Karen Long and the property owner talk about. I had an email that had a photo of a mattress that was in front of the property. So the mattress was hanging between the driveway and the neighboring property to the south of 83 North Willard. And I had seen the condition prior but this the time of year where again as a new property could being rented out and under these circumstances I wanted to test it a little bit. I will be honest to say I did not jump on it the moment I saw it because things go out in front of a number of properties but I thought it would be a good way to find out if someone was paying attention other than myself or my staff. But I had received follow-ups from the neighbors over those next few days that nothing was happening about it and on the 28th of August I called the property owner that's listed in our database, Rachel. And I believe she's the owner of the property's daughter. So the phone call I had first left a message for Rachel and got a call back. Essentially what I was saying was the mattress out front has to go. It's been there for close to a week. It had been several days. And I said it's the type of thing that really someone should have been paying attention to and the tenants should have let you know about long ago. She said she would check on that right away and get back to me and the response I got I was really dissatisfied with. She said it's not the tenants, it doesn't belong to them. In my line of thinking if something sits in front of your properties and respectfully if it was one of your properties I might tell you the same thing. If something sat in front of your property for a week and no one did anything about it I would have expected, what I would do is if something was dumped in my driveway I would be on the phone to any official who would hear, talk to me or do anything about it. That didn't happen in this case. And so a week later I let Rachel know I was really dissatisfied. That needed to be resolved. Her response was that she's not the property manager anymore. But they were gonna take care of the trash and the mattress wasn't theirs. I did get a voicemail message from Andy, I believe her dad, the property owner saying that they were gonna take care of the mattress and it did go away. But I looked at that as sort of a bad indicator that somebody whoever was supposed to be taking care of the property was not looking after it. And if the property owners weren't there and the property manager wasn't doing their job, again I saw it as a bad example of property maintenance and property management. And I concur with Karen Long that there has been trash stored in front of the property. It's not part of the housing code. It's actually not okay to store trash whether it's on the curb or even in the front yard under the housing ordinance. I know that's not zoning but for the chapter 18, section 111 trash isn't allowed to be stored in the front yard or by the curb of a property. It's supposed to be on the side or in the back and not in plain view in the front yard on any day other than for the day of collection. So that's it unless anyone has any questions. So I just wanted to follow up real quickly. The applicant said that she did call your office a few times, did that happen? So the only call I got was a message back from Andy and it was after my initial call. I'm not sure it's possible. I'd be speculating but it's possible they called another department, possibly the Department of Public Works but I don't know if that was the office that got that call or not. Thanks Bill. Does the applicant want to come back up? So you can see here it's quite a hill to climb that was not of your making necessarily but you're showing up in the middle of it with a lot of history. I can feel that and I think if I were an owner and an occupant in Burlington I would have similar concerns about how the neighborhood is turned over and the interest in having owner-occupied properties. I can't really speak to that here. I'm honestly an investor. I'm honestly a great landlord I'd like to thank and very responsive. I'm a little confused by the conversation here and certainly the comments about essentially testing us as landlords. When Rachel moved out in May we immediately filed the appropriate paperwork to change the property manager to Emily Lafleur, a local, right? I find it interesting that we were being tested as landlords when honestly that we aspire to be great landlords, fabulous landlords and really respect the property and the neighborhood. I really wish that you had reached out to us. I really do because we would be horrified that we were in any way upsetting the neighbors, honestly. There are now two properties for sale on North Willard Street, 69 and 72 and they're both absolutely embarrassments and I think the town should think about how that's gonna end. When you make it continually hard for people who are law abiding rule following permit filing and I think in the three years here I'll bet you we've filed 20 permits and paid goodness knows how much in fees to try and do everything just right just like I'm here today. I think as a town we need to confront and I say, wait, who's gonna buy 69 and 72 North Willard and turn them into the kind of attractive, safe, appropriate, permitted housing that you would like them turned into. I can do that. The only things that we're following the ordinance here and I understand your sentiments about it but I think the ordinance was developed because if those properties that you're describing are developed to the maximum that one could do it created a series of problems that had a domino effect throughout the whole city. I totally understand that but I'm not part of that problem and I'm bearing the burden for past bad landlords and past non-rule followers. And the city's bearing the benefit of the ordinance. I'm sure. So I guess what I wanna ask is are there any circumstances under which you'd approve this? So I feel sometimes as I'm saying, well, how about if I did this? How about if I did that? Are there any circumstances under which this would be allowed? Even in a provisional? Well, we'll take this up, we'll deliberate on this. Okay. The ordinance, there's a couple of things about the ordinance that are problems. You mentioned the square footage but the square footage is of two floors, not the three floors so that technically you don't actually meet the square footage of the ordinance. The parking is an issue. So I don't know what the result of that is and how what we would do in deliberation with is any. Okay. That's the answer. I understand the dilemma and the sincerity of your approaching this. I respect your time. Okay. Thank you for allowing me to be heard. Bill, did you have something you wanted to add? I'd rather not. And if there's an issue that you wanna heal with the history, you might wanna just talk to. I actually just wanted to clear the record and make sure that it's clear for the board and for the property owner to understand this property wasn't singled out. I am dealing with 10,000 rental units on a daily basis in the city of Burlington and there are a couple thousand of them that turn over for the students. And so with that neighborhood, there were probably I would say between 30 and 50 properties where I had similar observations. But again, don't have enough time in the day to call everybody and document everything, but I was aware of a number of different issues to try to see is the property being taken care of itself or does it require us to directly act to determine if the people are taking good care of the property? So I wanna be clear on that. This was not the only property where I drove by something and didn't take action immediately because I saw something out front because there were dozens and dozens of them across the city in general because that's what happens with the big move out. But we have to have a plan in place and expect that property owners will handle most of them and the property owners that don't act demand us to do that. But we don't have enough time in the day to call everyone during that move-in period. Okay, thank you. Thank you, everybody, for participating. And with that, we'll close the public hearing. We have one other item on our agenda, 37 Village Green. I'm assuming the applicant is not here. I don't see her. She was informed of the meeting last week, responded to that she would be here, but I haven't, she's not here. It's on her. It was recommended as consent. So maybe we can move it to consent on the next agenda. Yeah, yeah. And do we need a motion to move it to the next agenda for consent? Yes, yes. So moved. Any discussion about moving this to the next? All in favor? Opposed? Okay. And then 26 Church Street is withdrawn so we don't need to take any action on that, is that correct? Correct. I have one question for you, Scott. It sort of came out of this Willard Street thing and that is that we have a lot of applications where we've had parking management plans and we have car share and other things that have, do we have, we had a report on some of that? We had a parking report. But do we have a report on how the car share has worked out in terms of parking management? We have a standard requirement for folks receiving parking waivers to report back to us every year for three years as to actual parking demand. I've sick crying on that a time or two. I produced numbers for this board probably two years ago at this point and it's on the to-do list to have a follow up. Okay, thank you. Anything else on our agenda? I would just note it that we have our new zoning clerk, Hallie Davis here tonight. Welcome. Welcome. And with that we're adjourned. Okay. Thank you.